Stein: 25 percent. If the Raptors hadn't already acquired Rudy Gay, this figure would be a lot higher, because Chicago's interest in Andrea Bargnani has not waned ... and Toronto doesn't have a long list of teams willing to take Bargnani on. But the Raps, eager as they are to ship Bargnani out, have understandable concerns about the luxury-tax implications of having both Gay and Boozer on their payroll. And Chicago likewise doesn't have a long list of teams prepared to absorb Boozer's contract. So if there's no Boozer deal to Toronto, I'm not sure that I see one.

Luxury tax is owed based on the payroll on day of last regular season game played.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I would do this trade no questions asked from a talent perspective. Of course the issue is the new CBA and that makes things a bit dicey. If the Bulls were desperate enough to throw in a 1st rd pick then do it..... now.

I believe the plan would be for Gibson to start and Bargnani to come off bench. This is interesting because Bargnani's departure in Chicago would likely coincide with the arrival of Mirotic.

I would do this trade no questions asked from a talent perspective. Of course the issue is the new CBA and that makes things a bit dicey. If the Bulls were desperate enough to throw in a 1st rd pick then do it..... now.

Totally agree from a production perspective (contracts ignored).

At the end of the day, both Gay and Boozer's contracts expire in 2015. That gives us 2 years to make a run, and if it doesn't work, we've got $36 million coming off the books.

With the current ownership group, tanking is clearly not a realistic option. I think it's low-risk move assuming Boozer stays healthy.

At the end of the day, both Gay and Boozer's contracts expire in 2015. That gives us 2 years to make a run, and if it doesn't work, we've got $36 million coming off the books.

With the current ownership group, tanking is clearly not a realistic option. I think it's low-risk move assuming Boozer stays healthy.

Unfortunately, health is often the biggest part of risk in sports...and Boozer has a fuzzy track record there and is only getting older....

Obviously there are worse options than this deal, but I understand why BC and co don't like it as a primary choice. I think you're somewhat right, and that if they end up getting something like a 1st round pick thrown in (and nothing better is out there), they'll probably take it. I'm still not sure how I feel about it though.

I don't now. I was big on this deal a few days ago. I think it was just initial excitement because I feared BC would end up sticking us with a knucklehead like Tyrus Thomas.

Boozer certainly has some things that we need, but I just don't trust his health, and do believe despite his strong season, he's very clearly on the decline. If we're goign to screw ourselves with a big contract, it either needs to be for a guy like Gasol (though with the injury this is not urgent) who can be shed quickly and also be a big contributor, or for a guy like Millsap or Jefferson, who can grow with this team....I'm not a big Smith fan...I think he's a guy who's production overstates his value on the court. That said, if he's your cup of tea, it still makes more sense to pay him than Boozer.

No, if we're going to trade Bargnani for a big money PF, it has to maintain flexibility, or be a piece for the future...Boozer accomplishes neither of these things. He helps the team on the court a bit now, at least we ahve to assume he would, but is just a 2-year rental, and doesn't really put us over the top in that time. And we have to assume his trade value is not going to go up.

Boozer is only 31 and his stats have been consistent throughout his career....if Chicago wants to dump his salary and bell and Rogers will pay I say do it. We are very close to being a really good team and this move could solidify us.

Boozer is only 31 and his stats have been consistent throughout his career....if Chicago wants to dump his salary and bell and Rogers will pay I say do it. We are very close to being a really good team and this move could solidify us.

His stats have been pretty consistent, his health, focus and leadership have not. Is he an upgrade over Bargnani? Sure, but so is my left nut right now the way Bargs is playing.

I do not think that getting Boozer makes us a significantly better team. Boozer is not that 'missing piece' type player in my mind. Getting him would turn us from a playoff team into a slightly better playoff team...he does not make us a contender.

Now, if you just want a slightly better team to cheer for, that's fine, but I wouldn't expect the team's fortunes to improve that much with his acquisition. If Boozer was that missing piece type of player, a team that added him for that reason wouldn't be so eager to trade him simply to dump money (which is basically what they're doing if they trade for Bargs).

Why invest in such a player when we're almost certainly a playoff team without him? I think if Bargs can't bring back flexibility and/or a piece for the future, they should trade him for depth, not a washed up all-star.

His stats have been pretty consistent, his health, focus and leadership have not. Is he an upgrade over Bargnani? Sure, but so is my left nut right now the way Bargs is playing.

I do not think that getting Boozer makes us a significantly better team. Boozer is not that 'missing piece' type player in my mind. Getting him would turn us from a playoff team into a slightly better playoff team...he does not make us a contender.

Now, if you just want a slightly better team to cheer for, that's fine, but I wouldn't expect the team's fortunes to improve that much with his acquisition. If Boozer was that missing piece type of player, a team that added him for that reason wouldn't be so eager to trade him simply to dump money (which is basically what they're doing if they trade for Bargs).

Why invest in such a player when we're almost certainly a playoff team without him? I think if Bargs can't bring back flexibility and/or a piece for the future, they should trade him for depth, not a washed up all-star.

I agree. I don't think Boozer is a big enough upgrade worthy of making us a luxury tax team. Is Boozer worth loosing all financial flexibility for, including loosing the option of signing free agents in the offsease using the various exceptions? I don't think so.

I agree. I don't think Boozer is a big enough upgrade worthy of making us a luxury tax team. Is Boozer worth loosing all financial flexibility for, including loosing the option of signing free agents in the offsease using the various exceptions? I don't think so.

Your very confident of us being able to get a 15 n 10 guy in free agency. We have to build a winning resume before we can start think about free agents. That's why I'm fine with him, Rudy and Lowry till 2015

Your very confident of us being able to get a 15 n 10 guy in free agency. We have to build a winning resume before we can start think about free agents. That's why I'm fine with him, Rudy and Lowry till 2015

Who said he wanted to sign a 15 and 10 guy??? We still have depth issues at PG, to say the least, and who knows what other holes if more moves are made. Boozer is not actually the kind of player we need the most. JV figures to be able to score from all the same spots I think by his 3rd year. We will need a true stretch 4 who can shoot and rebound, so the floor is well spaced.

Getting Boozer also just moves us more toward Memphis' style by default as we'll have two big men who can't stretch out to the perimeter very well starting, in JV and Boozer....I frankly don't think it's a good idea. If we want to keep fast and athletic, Boozer ismaybe the worst possible choice...even worse than keeping Bargs in that sense. I would be more ok with trading for Millsap and trying to convince him to re-sign, just because of how bad a fit I see Boozer as for what TO seems to be trying to do on the court.
*I'd just like to add that style, I'm sure, is the other big reason Chicago wants this trade to happen. Boozer is almost useless as a PF when the game speeds up as it tends to these days. He can't guard stretch 4s, he certainly can't keep up with a small-ball lineup, where his bruising kind of post up game becomes harder to utilize because of pace...Thus he's less than ideal on both ends of the court.

Who said he wanted to sign a 15 and 10 guy??? We still have depth issues at PG, to say the least, and who knows what other holes if more moves are made. Boozer is not actually the kind of player we need the most. JV figures to be able to score from all the same spots I think by his 3rd year. We will need a true stretch 4 who can shoot and rebound, so the floor is well spaced.

Getting Boozer also just moves us more toward Memphis' style by default as we'll have two big men who can't stretch out to the perimeter very well starting, in JV and Boozer....I frankly don't think it's a good idea. If we want to keep fast and athletic, Boozer ismaybe the worst possible choice...even worse than keeping Bargs in that sense. I would be more ok with trading for Millsap and trying to convince him to re-sign, just because of how bad a fit I see Boozer as for what TO seems to be trying to do on the court.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to find a 3pt shooting PF at all. Gay's situation in Memphis (with Gasol and Randolph) had more to do with the offensive hierarchy...as in, the big men being option #1 and #2.

With Boozer in town, Gay would still be option #1.

But the biggest benefit of this proposed deal is getting rid of Bargnani's carcass. If this is the only offer Colangelo gets, I think it's a no-brainer.